PHIL 150 1st EditionFinal Exam Study Guide UNIT 11. Which are, according to Baker, the two most basic skills needed for philosophical thinking?Baker says that philosophical thinking involves clarification and justification. Philosophers clarify their claims if they are open to different interpretations. For example, they give more precise meanings to some of the terms used in their claims. Philosophers also justify their claims, that is, they offer reasons for them.2. Why does Baker say that objecting to the conclusion of an argument is not the best way of objecting to that argument?Because objecting to a conclusion leaves us with two arguments, the initial argument and the argument that we used to show that that conclusion is fake. In other words, we are left with two arguments with opposing conclusions, with no reason for accepting oneof those conclusions rather than the other. A more effective way of undermining an argument (and in particular its conclusion) would be to show (a) that its premises are false, or at least implausible, or (b) that the conclusion does not follow, deductively or inductively, from those premises.3. What, according to Anne Baker is the definition of Claim?specific, focused assertions that are put forth as being true or false.4. What are the two parts to an argument?conclusion and premises (support the conclusion)5. The content of philosophy contains what three fundamentals?1. The fundamental nature of reality-the nature of space and time, of properties and universals, and especially but obviously not exclusively the part of reality that consists of persons (the branch of philosophy called metaphysics).2. The fundamental nature of the cognitive relations between persons and other parts of reality-the relations of thinking about, knowing, and so on (the branch of philosophy called epistemology).3. The fundamental nature of values, especially values pertaining to ethical or social relations between persons and other parts of reality, such as nonhuman animals, theenvironment, and so on (the branch of philosophy called axiology, which includes the more specific fields of ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics).6. According to Anne Baker, how is “thinking clearly” defined?being able to clarify various ideas and views that you encounter7. Define logical in Anne Baker’s way.considering and sometimes discovering reasons for those views/being able to successfully evaluate when those reasons are good ones or not.8. Which claims are easier to clarify, literal or metaphorical?Literal.9. What is the core idea of a philosophical argument?the idea of giving reasons for a claim: offering premises for the purpose of showing that the conclusion of the argument is true10. Define the form of a conditional statement.If A, then B. A=antecedent, B=consequent11. Define the relationship between objections and arguments.An argument that considers and responds to objections is much stronger than an argument that considers no objections at all.12. What is the difference between validity and invalid arguments?Invalid arguments: Premises are true but the conclusion is false. Validity: it is impossible for the conclusion to be false while the premises are true13. Define Enumerative inductive arguments.Premises that provide good but not conclusive grounds for the truth of the conclusionUNIT 21. What thesis about the nature of morality do James and Stuart Rachels illustrate through the cases of Baby Theresa, Jodie and Mary, and Tracy Latimer?- They use those examples to illustrate two features of morality. First, moral judgments must be supported by good reasons, that is, by an accurate representation of the facts and by valid moral principles. Second, moral judgments must give “equal weight to the interests of each individual affected by one’s action.”2. Why do James and Stuart Rachels claim that the conclusion of the Cultural Differences Argument does not follow from the premise?- Because disagreement does not entail that there is no objective truth of the matter. For example, most people believed in the past that the Earth is flat, whereas most people believe today that the Earth is spherical. However, that disagreement does not entail that there is no objective truth about the shape of the Earth.3. Do James and Stuart Rachels say that cultural relativism is false? Explain.- They never directly say that cultural relativism is false, yet they suggest that it is false, because it entails implausible claims. For example, cultural relativism entails that we cannot compare the moral value of different societies. If this were true, then the abolition of slavery in the US was not a case of moral progress—on the contrary, cultural relativism entails that the abolition of slavery was wrong, because slavery was upheld by the moral code of (at least) the pre-Civil-War American South. Since the abolition of slavery was arguably a case of moral progress, then it seems that we can compare the moral value of different societies. Andthis suggests that cultural relativism is false.G.P. The logical structure of this critique of moral relativism is this (letters stand for claims):If P, then Q.Not-Q.Therefore,Not-P.This form of argument, known as “modus tollens,” is a valid deduction and is very common in philosophy. Another common valid deduction is the “modus ponens”:If P, then Q.P.Therefore, Q.4. What would be, according to James and Stuart Rachels, a plausible standard for assessing social practices? Would that standard be compatible with cultural relativism? Why yes or no?- James and Stuart Rachels argue that a social practice is morally acceptable just in case it promotes the welfare of the people affected by it. Since this is a culture-independent standard, cultural relativism would reject it.5. Do James and Stuart Rachels claim that tolerance of other cultures is a virtue? Explain.- They say that tolerance of other cultures is a virtue unless those cultures display outrageous practices. As they put it, “the toleration of torture, slavery, and rape is a vice, not a virtue” (p. 30).6. What is the main difference between simple subjectivism and emotivism?- Simple Subjectivism claims that moral judgments state facts- more specifically, the fact that the speaker approves, or disapproves, of certain actions. In contrast, emotivism denies that moral judgments state facts, and claims that moral judgments are used for the following purposes: (i) to express (as